18/5/12: MCG Collingwood 96 d. Geelong 84

26/5/12: AAMI Collingwood 75 d Adelaide 49

14/7/12: MCG Collingwood 110 d Geelong 79

So far this year the "barely ever successful gameplan" is 3-0 over the "proven gameplan", are you predicting a change of fortune come September?

Yes.

In the lead-up to the finals you saw the first signs last weekend with Geelong, Hawthorn and Adelaide. (Even Sydney and Freo showed signs of change!)

Yes.

In the lead-up to the finals you saw the first signs last weekend with Geelong, Hawthorn and Adelaide. (Even Sydney and Freo showed signs of change!)

Are you seriously suggesting that Hawthorn plays the same gameplan as Geelong and Adelaide and that Hawthorn success in September will somehow vindicate Geelong over Collingwood?

Hardnut, Hawthorn's gameplan is different to Geelong's. It's also different to what it was at the start of the year.

Geelong's gameplan from 2012 is different to its plan of 2011 and 2010, and very different to 2007.

Which one is the gameplan that Adelaide uses now?

Rodney Eade said that the game doesn't change just between seasons, but even within seasons. He thought that it was every half season. So which gameplan of Geelong's and Collingwood's were you talking about? The current one?

lol

Apparently there are two 'gameplans' in the AFL right now.

Collingwood's one that is winning despite itself, and every other good team's one...

DERP!

Thought my comments would bring a few people out!

IMO it's a pity that the term 'gameplan' is thrown around so randomly. There are too many comments that could be made to fit in this space, but let me try a few simplified ones.

All teams have a basic plan which they continually tinker with for various reasons - the difficulty in any discussion is distinguishing tinkering from basic or radical change (in the mind of the reader).

I would suggest that there are 3-4 basic plans which have variations and, of course, 'tinkerings'.

The most relevant basic plans to this discussion are the Collingwood and the Geelong plans as opposites and because of the dominance of those two clubs over recent years. (Ironically, but not unexpectedly, the Collingwood plan was exposed by Hawthorn - another story - last weekend.) The old 'Sydney'/'St Kilda' plan still exists, but has evolved with gradual player and coach changes at different clubs.

The reason for my comments is simply that IMO the so-called Geelong plan is the simplest, most effective basic football plan. Yes, it also has gradually changed, but only with 'tinkering' - it's still fundamental football at its best - as evidenced by the way new young players move into the team with relative ease.

Nice to have a sensible discussion on the game for a change.

Nice to have a sensible discussion on the game for a change.

That's ironic as you never seem to explain what the hell you are talking about.

So, please, sensibly go through what each of these gameplans involves as you seem to be able to see them so easily.

rpfc is right. You have written a lot without actually saying anything. All you said was that there are 4 plans, but they're always changing.

1- What are the 4 gameplans?

2- Explain what each of these gameplans involve that distinguishes them from other gameplans.

3- Which clubs (across the league) use which gameplan?

I still don't think you have any idea what you are talking about and are talking around corners to prevent yourself every having to answer a question that might expose your lack of understanding. But here are 3 questions that could help you save (some) face ...... if you choose to answer them (which I'm not confident you will).

Edited July 26, 201213 yr by Axis of Bob

Ah, forever the underlying anger!

I think it's about time a few others explained what they think about this topic - sensible discussion only please.

(In anticipation, Bob, I'm not giving any more detail at this stage - saving it for a PhD!)

Ah, forever the underlying anger!

I think it's about time a few others explained what they think about this topic - sensible discussion only please.

(In anticipation, Bob, I'm not giving any more detail at this stage - saving it for a PhD!)

lol

Anger?

It's more like disbelief.

You are entirely content-less.

You're a Kinder Suprise without the surprise...

Comment:

I still don't think you have any idea what you are talking about and are talking around corners to prevent yourself every having to answer a question that might expose your lack of understanding.

Response:

I think it's about time a few others explained what they think about this topic.

We are all judged by our actions. Yours say 'I am wasting everyone's time'.

At least now nobody takes anything you say seriously as you have reduced yourself to a pathetic curiosity in the gutters of the Demonland highway. From now on I will only engage you if I'm bored or looking for a pick me up.

One more thing - please don't ruin all the threads on here with your rubbish. I accept that you will post in some, but at least leave some of the more interesting ones free for others to discuss football. Cheers.

Comment:

Response:

We are all judged by our actions. Yours say 'I am wasting everyone's time'.

At least now nobody takes anything you say seriously as you have reduced yourself to a pathetic curiosity in the gutters of the Demonland highway. From now on I will only engage you if I'm bored or looking for a pick me up.

One more thing - please don't ruin all the threads on here with your rubbish. I accept that you will post in some, but at least leave some of the more interesting ones free for others to discuss football. Cheers.

I'll do what I want Bob - a little thing called 'free speech' doesn't 'ruin' threads. Perhaps you would like to put up your views on so-called gameplans.

I'll do what I want Bob - a little thing called 'free speech' doesn't 'ruin' threads. Perhaps you would like to put up your views on so-called gameplans.

All bob is saying is back up your product...once.

With content.

Not hyperbole or rhetoric.

Your choices mark you. Saying that you are not going to say anything because you have the right to is missing the point. It highlights that you either cannot back up your...material, or you are deliberately choosing to argue with empty statements and then deride those who question you as "apologists". It is not bizarre, it is either deliberately deceptive or a sign of having reached limits in your actual understanding.